cs.CLMay 31, 2026

Decoding in Order-Agnostic Language Models: Chain-Rule Deviation and Uniform Spreading

Authors: Lin Yao

Organizations: School of Computer Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China · Zhongguancun Academy, Beijing, 100097, China

Abstract

Order-agnostic language models (OALMs), including discrete diffusion language models (dLLMs), are trained to predict masked tokens under arbitrary conditioning sets, allowing sequences to be generated or scored under arbitrary reveal orders at inference time. In LLaDA-2.1, we report three findings. First, the learned conditionals are not exact factorizations of a coherent joint distribution: changing only the reveal order shifts target log-likelihood by up to 0.49 nats/token, so likelihood alone mixes content difficulty with path-dependent artifacts. Second, although confidence-first (CF) decoding is order-agnostic, its reveal orders are close to left-to-right (L2R) on content tokens. Third, we propose a complementary diagnostic based on the shape of the confidence trace. A uniform-spreading theorem shows that, at fixed total likelihood, target recoverability is maximized when per-step confidence is spread uniformly; the resulting deviation motivates Var(logqt)\mathrm{Var}(\log q_t) as a diagnostic for comparing decoding paths. Across C4 and four downstream benchmarks, low variance separates structured paths from random ordering, and variance is consistently associated with downstream correctness. These results support reporting mean confidence and confidence variance jointly when comparing OALM decoding paths.

Explore similar work

May 10, 2026cs.LG

Path-Dependent Denoising: A Non-Conservative Field Perspective on Order Collapse in Diffusion Language Models

Diffusion language models (DLMs) offer a structural alternative to autoregressive generation: denoising can update tokens in arbitrary orders or in parallel rather than along a fixed left-to-right chain. In practice, fast DLM decoding remains strongly order-sensitive and often drifts toward autoregressive-like trajectories. We trace this tension to compatibility. At each reverse-time step, a DLM provides local denoising conditionals over the unresolved tokens. Arbitrary-order denoising becomes well defined when these local conditionals compose into order-invariant pseudo-joints. We formalize this view by defining order-induced pseudo-joints and a local denoising circulation: the log-ratio between the two pseudo-joints obtained by swapping a pair of unresolved positions. This circulation is zero under compatible conditionals, and global order gaps decompose into sums of local circulations along adjacent swaps. We further separate incompatibility-driven path dependence from conditional-dependence error in parallel updates and from order-specific estimation error. The resulting framework provides inference-only diagnostics for testing when DLM decoding is genuinely order-free.
Jeonseong Kim
Aug 6, 2026cs.CL

Answer First, Reason Later: Commitment Order in Diffusion LLMs

Masked diffusion language models (dLLMs) can commit tokens in any order -- a freedom marketed as their core advantage over autoregressive decoding. We show that on reasoning tasks this freedom is instead the axis of failure. Logging every commitment during decoding of LLaDA-8B on GSM8K, we find that unconstrained (pure) decoding commits the final answer at 15-24% of the trajectory while half the reasoning region is still masked, and collapses to answer-only outputs on up to 90% of problems as the canvas grows. The cause is not the model's termination beliefs -- EOS "pressure" is nearly identical across decoders -- but reachability: whether the sampler may act on those beliefs at distant positions. A 2x2 prompt-decoder design shows that chain-of-thought helps only under ordered commitment (interaction +34.8 percentage points, 95% CI [26.8, 42.8]; without reasoning text the decoders are indistinguishable), an interaction we decompose into a collapse channel and an order channel and replicate on Dream-7B and MATH-500. A single-knob intervention -- frontier-gated commitment -- causally recovers the full gap (0.528 to 0.852) while preserving up to 4x parallel decoding, along a measured frontier whose optimal window flips from w=1 at full refinement to unconstrained at 8 tokens/step. Our results reframe existing window-style samplers, previously motivated by efficiency, as the minimal fix for a reasoning pathology they were never designed to address.
Jewon Yeom, Jaewon Sok, Seonghyeon Park +3
Jun 12, 2026cs.LG

Neither Parallel Nor Sequential: How DiffusionGemma Actually Commits Tokens

Open diffusion language models are marketed as parallel, non-autoregressive decoders, yet the order in which a shipped checkpoint actually commits its tokens is almost never measured. We instrument DiffusionGemma 26B, a masked discrete-diffusion mixture-of-experts model built on Gemma 4, hooking its sampler's accept step to record which canvas positions commit, when, and at what confidence. Across a 686-prompt, six-regime probe suite we find that its decoding is neither parallel nor block-autoregressive: it follows a partial left-to-right commit bias whose apparent strength depends almost entirely on the granularity at which you look. Order is weak token by token and strengthens smoothly as the analysis is coarsened, so the model's "block size" turns out to be an artifact of the measuring ruler rather than the architecture. The model commits in large simultaneous batches, leaving much of the within-batch order genuinely undefined rather than merely unobserved. The behaviour is regime-dependent: structured JSON is committed in essentially arbitrary order, and a position's commit confidence tracks correctness on mathematical reasoning but carries no signal on factual recall. Commitment is aggressive, finishing in a short late burst well inside the step budget, while task accuracy matches the model's autoregressive Gemma-4 sibling. Beyond these findings, our central contribution is methodological: measuring decoding order honestly demands handling trailing-EOS padding, within-regime confounding, commit non-monotonicity, block-size sensitivity, and large commit-batch ties, each of which can otherwise manufacture a decoding-order result that is not really there.
Ali Asaria, Tony Salomone, Deep Gandhi